Were does morality come from?

[Syntax]

This is rather bizarre in anyone claiming to be Catholic and willing to publicly debate on a DB as a Catholic, presumably acknowledging the infallibility of Catholic dogma and doctrine.

Whoa, slow down, buddy. Don’t lump me into a some category to which you think I belong without inquiring first. You need to get clear on what I mean by “proof.” I do believe these **philosophical ** arguments are both valid and sound arguments demonstrating the existence of God, but philosophical “proofs” are not **formal **proofs of the kind you find in mathematics and logic whose conclusions are self-evident to everyone.

The only difference is that while the premises and conclusions in **philosophical **arguments are self-evident to ME, the premises in these arguments are not always self-evident to the NON-believer. So this is what I mean by “not having proof” for God’s existence.

So don’t misconstrue what I actually hold.

 

[Abu]

Syntax – thanks for your clarification – the fact is God’s existence CAN be proved, and you had actually written “God’s existence cannot be proven” so others can be misled without correction, and you gave the wrong impression.

The water is muddied because modern philosophy begins with doubt, many philosophers now would limit the reach of the intellect to what can be verified by immediate sense experience or proved by testing hypotheses in a laboratory. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), therefore, took great pains to defend the human mind’s integrity and its capacity to know spiritual as well as material realities.

Your concern is precisely why I included the above. Until and unless science and mathematics are seen as not all there is, and philosophy restored to its rightful place, we shall continue in confusion downhill through, modernism, relativism and secularism.

 

[Syntax]

Syntax – thanks for your clarification – the fact is God’s existence CAN be proved, and you had actually written “God’s existence cannot be proven” so others can be misled without correction, and you gave the wrong impression.

The water is muddied because modern philosophy begins with doubt, many philosophers now would limit the reach of the intellect to what can be verified by immediate sense experience or proved by testing hypotheses in a laboratory. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), therefore, took great pains to defend the human mind’s integrity and its capacity to know spiritual as well as material realities.

Your concern is precisely why I included the above. Until and unless science and mathematics are seen as not all there is, and philosophy restored to its rightful place, we shall continue in confusion downhill through, modernism, relativism and secularism.

Yes, the rampant skepticism in much contemporary philosophy is now the handmaiden of the sciences, whereas philosophy used to be the handmaiden of theology along with the optimism that the Truth can be known. However, I still think contemporary secular philosophy raises very important questions. On the other hand, I agree that it many cases it will lose track of itself. One of my favorites to read is JPII’s Fides et Ratio when I feel like I am getting lost down the rabbit hole of speculation. I am continually trying to maintain a balance between my faith and reason, especially since I am surrounded by 90% atheists in my philosophy graduate department at CU. A christian must always keep his head above his own intellectual storms.

Cheers.

S

 

[Abu]

We may recall:
Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, spoke also of “that sound philosophy,” which, “acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind’s ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth. … Never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic.”(#29, 30)

 

[Ender]

we know the Church speaks the Truth.

We’re using the word “know” differently. I do not know the Church speaks the truth. I believe she does but I cannot know it. More to the point, this isn’t a very persuasive argument to non-Catholics who can justify their own beliefs by saying they “know” they are right.

Ender:

Can you claim to know something is true if you cannot prove it?

Yes, if you are **justified in believing **

that it is true.

I don’t accept this. You equate “justified belief” with truth yet clearly others, who feel they are as justified in their beliefs as you are in yours, believe different things.You are not justified in equating believing with knowing.

…I don’t need to accept what she says is true “blindly.”

Given that I used the phrase “(reasoned) faith” this comment is a bit off target. On the other hand, given that you insist you know the Church is right, of what use is reason? If you “know the Church speaks the truth” then, if reason ever led you to doubt something she said, wouldn’t you need to reject reason and faithfully accept her position in preference to your own? You can’t have it both ways. If you know the Church speaks the truth then total (blind?) acceptance is the only logical approach; if there are things you need to reason out it can only be because you don’t accept “the Church knows” as sufficient … so it shouldn’t be surprising that others don’t accept it either.

No he isn’t. Please pay attention to what you are reading. Betterave said, “*what we can know *by reason about the existence of morality is not necessarily dependent on *what we can know *by reason about God.” This is not the same.

I thought it better to ask for clarification than to assume something about a statement that wasn’t clear. Is it bad form to ask what a person means rather than assuming something?

We know that person A’s conscience is not functioning properly by reason of having a justified belief that what the Church teaches is true. So there exist properly-formed functional consciences and poorly-formed dysfunctional consciences.

Given that pretty much everyone believes he is justified in his beliefs, this “The Church is right, everyone else is wrong” approach isn’t all that compelling for non-Catholics.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Are you? Is God flesh and blood? If you don’t know God, nor have been in the presence of God, how do you know that? Only God knows what He is Like, and what His Image is. It true that God made man upright, but consider that it is possible that a man may not know God’s Presence for his own reasons, when as you have pointed out, the reason is to be Like Him.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but I am always in the presence of God (and so are you). Also, remember: God has taken on the form of flesh and blood and you and I are not merely flesh and blood.

Then why can’t animals sin? They are flesh and blood also aren’t they? As you say, we are already made in God’s image, then why the concern for right and wrong? Can man place himself in the Presence of God because his own reasons are right in his own judgement? Can man make God speak to him? What reason can man have, in his own reasoning of right and wrong, that would supercede his Maker’s? Consider: if God was to speak to you, would it be the Truth?

Huh? I don’t know what you’re getting at.

One could quote the whole Bible and only prove that the Bible says. What proves there is a God is the Presence of God which only He can prove, or make known. How could He who made nature be against it, unless those in whom it be given to, be against Him who has given it to them? If one values his place in the flesh more then his place with his Maker, then what should His Maker decide?

Again: I don’t know where you’re going with this.

 

[Ender]

This is rather bizarre in anyone claiming to be Catholic and willing to publicly debate on a DB as a Catholic, presumably acknowledging the infallibility of Catholic dogma and doctrine.

I have no problem believing that God exists even though I am unfamiliar with anything that constitutes proof. I surely don’t see that being unaware of such a proof puts one in the “bizarre” Catholic category.

“Rational ‘proofs’ for the existence of God are constructed by looking at natural phenomena and then reasoning to a cause or a formal order of things beyond finite nature.

I have no doubt that there are reasoned arguments for God’s existence and that they are more compelling than arguments for his non-existence, but I do not equate probability with fact. Even a cursory knowledge of quantum physics is enough to show that whether something is real is not dependent on whether it is rational.

St. Thomas Aquinas’s five proofs for the existence of God (cf. CCC 32) are cases in point. Aquinas’s arguments presuppose that nature is not self-explanatory, and the force of each argument depends upon agreement that the human intellect can make legitimate inferences from the seen to the unseeable, from the finite to the infinite.

What of his presuppositions? As they cannot be proven true how can you say that any conclusions reached based on those presuppositions have been proven true? The conclusions may be logically consistent and irrefutable but they will be true only if the presuppositions are true … and the presuppositions are assumed.

Secondly, we do know that Christ’s Church is infallible in defining faith and morals to the whole Church because it is His, with His authority.

If we can know all of this, what is the role of faith? If we know something is true we don’t need faith to believe it.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

What of his presuppositions? As they cannot be proven true how can you say that any conclusions reached based on those presuppositions have been proven true? The conclusions may be logically consistent and irrefutable but they will be true only if the presuppositions are true … and the presuppositions are assumed.
If we can know all of this, what is the role of faith? If we know something is true we don’t need faith to believe it.

Before we go any further, maybe you had better clarify for us: are you simply an out and out skeptic? Do you think that *anything *can be ‘objectively known’? It is, of course, perfectly possible to contrue the notion of ‘knowledge’ such that its conditions are never met by human beings (even though such a construal is necessarily always groundless and nonsensical) - is this what you’re trying to do? Your ultimate faith is in the ‘irrationality’ of quantum physics, or something to that effect?

 

[Betterave]

But we don’t know what is morally right - or perhaps we differ over what it means to “know” something. Can you claim to know something is true if you cannot prove it? I agree that if we know something to be true then it doesn’t require faith to believe it, but we don’t know that the Church is right so (reasoned) faith is required to accept that what she says is true.

The argument here is quite simple:

Premise 1: If the Church teaches the truth about morality, one of the things that is true about morality is that we can know objective moral truths by the use of natural reason.

Premise 2 (from Ender): It is not true that we can know objective moral truths by the use of natural reason.

Conclusion (modus tollens): The Church does not teach the truth about morality.

And yet…: Ender believes by faith that the Church teaches the truth about morality! His faith contradicts his reason, yet his faith is supposed to accord with reason, provided his faith is that of the Church.

 

[Ender]

Before we go any further, maybe you had better clarify for us: are you simply an out and out skeptic? Do you think that *anything *can be ‘objectively known’? It is, of course, perfectly possible to contrue the notion of ‘knowledge’ such that its conditions are never met by human beings (even though such a construal is necessarily always groundless and nonsensical) - is this what you’re trying to do? Your ultimate faith is in the ‘irrationality’ of quantum physics, or something to that effect?

What I am skeptical of is the arguments being presented. I’d actually like to hear a stronger argument than that we know something is true because we are (self) justified in believing it to be true. Whatever I am or whatever I believe is irrelevant: my arguments are either strong or weak. Deal with the arguments.

Ender

 

[Abu]

There is no point in evading the facts.

**God as the source of morality (EWTN)
Answer by Richard Geraghty on Dec-15-2006: **
God is the source of morality in two ways. The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience. Thus man has a natural knowledge of the basics of right and wrong. He knows that he should honor God and not create idols, that he should respect his neighbors and not lie, cheat or murder them, that men and women should be faithful to each other in marriage and not mess around with adultery and fornication, that parents should use their authority over their children for the sake of the children and not their own sakes. These are the natural laws which men know because they are human. This does not mean that they follow this knowledge because, having free will, they often spend a great deal of their lives in not following these norms but insist on inventing rules of their own. They know but they do not do and so become blind and stupid, as St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans in chapters one to three.

The second way that God is the source of morality is, as you suggested, because he laid down the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai stating what man should already know by reason but are intent on forgetting. God is reminding them not to forget because he is his power and wisdom will hold all men to account when they die. Basic morality, then, comes from human reason with its knowledge of the natural law and from God, who personally reveals to man how he should live, teachings found in the Old and New Testament.

The third source of morality is from Christ who, supporting both the natural law and the Ten Commandments, declares that men are to believe in him as both God and man if they are to be saved. I mention this just to round off the treatment. Speaking about Christ would be a paper on theology, not philosophy. You will have your hands full enough dealing with ethics or morality on the basis of natural law. So search around on Catholic web sites for discussions of natural law morality and good luck.

 

[Ender]

The argument here is quite simple:

Premise 1: If the Church teaches the truth about morality, one of the things that is true about morality is that we can know objective moral truths by the use of natural reason.

Premise 2 (from Ender): It is not true that we can know objective moral truths by the use of natural reason.

Conclusion (modus tollens): The Church does not teach the truth about morality.

That is a simple, logical argument. The problem with it is that it’s not the one I’ve been making. Catholics believe premise 1 to be true, non-Catholics do not and the issue I’ve raised is the difficulty in finding an argument that works for both groups - and “we’re right, you’re wrong” isn’t that argument.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There is no point in evading the facts.

True, and one of the facts we need to deal with in this discussion is that not everyone is Catholic and I am looking for arguments that will carry weight even with atheists.

God is the source of morality in two ways.

We are agreed that if morality exists then its source must be God.

The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience.

We also agreed that for morality to exist it had to be knowable. You make a relevant point here: as a creature of reason man has a basic tool necessary to discover moral truths. I am not sure I see a necessary link between the ability to reason and the existence of a conscience. I don’t think the conscience could exist without the ability reason but it’s not clear why the ability to reason couldn’t exist without the conscience. Anyway, whatever their relationship, man is a creature of reason and man has a conscience and this speaks to the point that (God’s) morality must be knowable.

Basic morality, then, comes from human reason with its knowledge of the natural law and from God, who personally reveals to man how he should live, teachings found in the Old and New Testament.

I agree with this as well. Man cannot know everything about morality merely through his own reason otherwise there would be no way to resolve differences between those who have reached reasonable - but different - conclusions.

Ender

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Your teacher was probably referring to the celebrated Euthyphro Dilemma which is from a dialogue of Plato - so over 2,000 years old and still a problem.

Here it is. Think of something that is wrong - say Adultery. Here is the question. 'Is adultery wrong solely because God commands us not to do it OR does God realising that adultery is wrong command us not to do it?

Sounds a bit odd but stick with it!

If you take the first alternative then wrong doing nothing more than disobeying God’s arbitrary commands. God could have commanded us to commit adultery and then it would faithfulness that would be wrong! If good/bad just depend on God’s commanding and nothing else then God could have commanded anything and that would then have been right.

Not many thinkers are willing to go down that road! So most think that God commands that we should not commit adultery because he knows that it is wrong. That means that things are right or wrong independently of God. If there were no God, adultery would still be wrong because whatever it is that makes adultery wrong is something that God espies and so, in theory, could anyone else who was morally sensitive enough.

I suggest you google Euthyphro Dilemma for more on this fascinating topic.

 

[headsmith]

There is an identity between the duty bound (deontological) and the nature bound (ontological) morality. If morals are maxims of successful behavior in the larger sense, the identity is “direction.” The moral duty direction is “top down,” that is, by authority, where “authority” is trust in “someone going the way we want to go ourselves.” Whereas, the natual direction is “bottom up,” that is, by reason, where “reasoning” leads us to “an adequation of our mind to reality,” that is, truth. Is it not true that the Church has never condemned a natural route, as opposed to a revealed route, back to the Father? Please advise.

 

[tonyrey]

If you take the first alternative then wrong doing nothing more than disobeying God’s arbitrary commands. God could have commanded us to commit adultery and then it would faithfulness that would be wrong! If good/bad just depend on God’s commanding and nothing else then God could have commanded anything and that would then have been right.

Not many thinkers are willing to go down that road! So most think that God commands that we should not commit adultery because he knows that it is wrong. That means that things are right or wrong independently of God. If there were no God, adultery would still be wrong because whatever it is that makes adultery wrong is something that God espies and so, in theory, could anyone else who was morally sensitive enough.

Welcome, Laurie! Evil is not evil because God creates evil. Evil is evil because it is negative and destructive. Goodness and love are positive and creative. They stem from the value of existence of which He is the Creator. God** is** existence, goodness and love: “In Him we live, move and have our being…”

 

[tonyrey]

There is an identity between the duty bound (deontological) and the nature bound (ontological) morality. If morals are maxims of successful behavior in the larger sense, the identity is “direction.” The moral duty direction is “top down,” that is, by authority, where “authority” is trust in “someone going the way we want to go ourselves.” Whereas, the natural direction is “bottom up,” that is, by reason, where “reasoning” leads us to “an adequation of our mind to reality,” that is, truth. Is it not true that the Church has never condemned a natural route, as opposed to a revealed route, back to the Father? Please advise.

Welcome, headsmith! You are right but to rely on reason alone is risky…

 

[Betterave]

Is it not true that the Church has never condemned a natural route, as opposed to a revealed route, back to the Father? Please advise.

I’m pretty sure that is true, in a limited sense. It’s true that natural reason can naturally come to know moral requirements that belong to our nature, although doing this may be difficult because we are subject to original sin (disordered desires and darkened intellects) as well as various historical circumstances which work for or against us. But we don’t believe in total depravity. Our nature is still our nature (a creation of God which God sees is good), and grace, which perfects nature, can work on nature by means other than just revelation.

 

[Betterave]

That is a simple, logical argument. The problem with it is that it’s not the one I’ve been making. Catholics believe premise 1 to be true, non-Catholics do not and the issue I’ve raised is the difficulty in finding an argument that works for both groups - and “we’re right, you’re wrong” isn’t that argument.

Ender

I know it’s not the argument you’ve been making. I only attribute premise 2 to you and my only point was to show that from your own perspective this is an irrational belief. (Btw: why wouldn’t a non-Catholic accept premise 1?)

The argument is a reductio ad absurdum. I’ll spell it out completely for you:

P1: If the Church teaches the truth about morality, then one of the things that is true about morality is that we can know objective moral truths by the use of natural reason.

P2 (from Ender): It is not true that we can know objective moral truths by the use of natural reason.

C1 (modus tollens): Therefore the Church does not teach the truth about morality.

…but
P4: Conclusion 1 is false. (from what you believe)

C2: Therefore P1 or P2 is false.

P5: P1 is not false.

C: P2 is false.

 

[Betterave]

Your teacher was probably referring to the celebrated Euthyphro Dilemma which is from a dialogue of Plato - so over 2,000 years old and still a problem.

Here it is. Think of something that is wrong - say Adultery. Here is the question. 'Is adultery wrong solely because God commands us not to do it OR does God realising that adultery is wrong command us not to do it?

Sounds a bit odd but stick with it!

If you take the first alternative then wrong doing nothing more than disobeying God’s arbitrary commands. God could have commanded us to commit adultery and then it would faithfulness that would be wrong! If good/bad just depend on God’s commanding and nothing else then God could have commanded anything and that would then have been right.

Not many thinkers are willing to go down that road! So most think that God commands that we should not commit adultery because he knows that it is wrong. That means that things are right or wrong independently of God. If there were no God, adultery would still be wrong because whatever it is that makes adultery wrong is something that God espies and so, in theory, could anyone else who was morally sensitive enough.

I suggest you google Euthyphro Dilemma for more on this fascinating topic.

Hi Laurie,
I’m not sure if you’ve read through the thread, but I thought we discussed the Euthyphro already(?).